NOT ONLY DISSED BY THE BRITISH ROYALS BUT FACING THE SUPREMES (COURT)

INVITATION DEFINITELY NOT COMING TO THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE
though 1,900 other guests, including many Africans, will attend the party,
leaving no place for the "racism" comments from the Obama leftists.

READ MORE

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/01/obamas-are-not-repeat-not-invited-to.html

With Her Majesty’s reported orders about Michelle Obama, I cannot see the Obama clan risking the certain indignity of “arriving” uninvited.

(As some apparently think they might WANT to try)

Oba-Hussein's grandfather, who was a common servant to a British colonel in Kenya and an accused informant for the terrorist Mau Mau movement, certainly does not endear the Obamas to the British Monarchy - nor does the weird, vulgar grandson, or his equally socially uncouth wife, who was rude about Princess Diana (virtually calling her an overdressed “slut”) and both failed to behave properly with the British Monarchy last time they met.

Good and gracious manners still count for a lot in worldwide high society (little of it to still be found in the USA as we are not socially structured along the classical paths and our “high society” is not based on long standing family background, education, service to our country and cultural upbringing but our "nobility" or "upper class"  is based on how much money they have in the bank or happen to be an unpolished, sometimes barely educated but popular movie, sports or music star.

(Or a lying, thuggish, CLUELESS Community Organizer (now millionaire), whom even Venezuela's thug, Hugo Chavez, verbally disrespects and Iran's Ahmadi-Nejad mocks in a speech as "not knowing his own name". Low life seems an appropriate characterization.

AND NOW THE SUPREME COURT IS TAKING ANOTHER LOOK AT HIS RIGHT TO OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE!

===============================================
Stunner!

Supremes to give eligibility case another look - Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

By Bob Unruh


In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.


Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Alan Note: The UNCONSITUTIONAL consideration that hearing the case and probably having to rule against Oba-Hussein (argument also used by Clinton appointed Federal District Judge David Carter to avoid allowing the case to proceed on merit) would create a national  crisis pales in the face of the destruction of America happening under his illegal and illegitimate presence in the Oval Office.

From which the Supreme Court has a duty to protect us! But has so far avoided as shown in the video!



Read full article:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=264897

SCOTUS DECISION OF MONDAY ON OBAMA BC

SCOTUS MONDAY OBAMA DECISION STATUS FROM PHIL BERG'S OFFICE Here is a very brief explanation of what today's ruling means to us... What today's ruling means is that WE'RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama - in effect preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn't resolved. If it comes to that then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible or he won't be sworn in. We just don't know what might happen next. In the meantime Bill Anderson's motion for "permission" to file his case as a friend of the court was granted. Anderson is an Electoral Voter from Arizona. WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!! AND OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY BID MAY BE. IN FACT: Here's the LAST paragraph of Anderson's amicus: § 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or UnitedStates attorney to act; procedure. If the Attorney General or United States attorneyrefuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on therequest of a person interested, the interested personmay apply to the court by certified petition for leaveto have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of thecourt, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliancewith the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as tosecurity for costs. Obama would be be ordered by the SCOTUS to produce his qualification to the US Attorney General or they would grant Anderson's request for a halt to the inauguration. AND Berg's Petition was denied, true. But the case is still open, to be listened to in Conference on Jan. 16. Obviously, the SCOTUS doesn't like Berg's other writs; SCOTUS denied his first writ to stop the election, and his second to stop the Electoral College vote, probably because of Constitutional standing among other things. But follow this timeline: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due Dec 1, 2008) Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson. Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. Jan 12 2009 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson GRANTED. Jan 12 2009 Petition DENIED. Looking at ALL of the cases against Obama at SCOTUS (Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Lightfoot, all of the Berg cases), THIS one is the only case that has the word “GRANTED” in the orders! NO OTHER Obama case has this little word — Granted. Not accepted, but Granted, by at least 4 Justices. Furthermore, here's the Amicus Brief filed by Bill Anderson http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf “The amicus (Bill Anderson) is a citizen of the State of Arizonaand an elector of that state for elector for President of the United States.” The amicus was filed nearly 6 weeks ago — that's a long time ago in this Obama fiasco, my friends. And when was it GRANTED? After the amicus had legal standing -- when his Electoral Vote was counted in Congress on Jan. 8. Furthermore, Arizona, from where the amicus is filing, is unique in its election laws: Within the job description and state statutes, there's a step that is required after the Secretary of State has certified the candidates and formatted the ballots. Once this step is complete, the ballot is transmitted to the Attorney General of Arizona, Solicitor General, TO BE CHECKED FOR IT’S LEGALITY. THIS is the authority that allows and forces a sworn duty to perform the real investigation into the legality of candidates and referendums. Bill Anderson, being an Elector with his vote now counted by the US Senate, operating under Arizona state law, can compel the Solicitor General to make the required investigation to insure the legality of the candidates and ballot, INCLUDING THE SUBPOENA OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE THROUGH THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT! This is why the SCOTUS is "kicking it down to the lower court." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Arizona AG is not already coordinating with the US AG to pull Hawaii BC records at this moment! The words "The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted" make more sense in this context! Berg's same docket (#08-570) is being heard again on Friday, if you're losing track of the cases... It almost explains Cheney’s tersely-scripted remarks after the votes were officially counted on Jan. 8 in the Senate, and that canary-eating feline grin of his as he dissolved the special Senate committee. LOL What's McCain's home state again? ;)